Feb. 1, 1886.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



135 



(But mm&t Colunuu 



GAME I, 



THE HANDS. 



B 



f S (trti 

 IH. A, 



f S (trtimjis). 10, 6. 



' ' " . 0. s. 



D. Q, S, 4. 

 C. A, (!, 7, 5 3. 



rS (trmjis).5,i, 3 

 I H. 3, 2. 



D. K, 10, ."!, 2. 

 L C. Q, Kii, II, 2. 



, (■ S (jtrimps). A, (,l, 

 "^ \n. Q, 10,0,5,4. 



8, 7, 



D. A, Kn, 9. 

 C. Kill. 



7J 



Score : 

 Z 



-Love all. 





♦ »i I 4- I [♦_♦ 



* ^P 



^jsJ * ^ 



10 <> 



11 



0^0 



0% 



o <> 



<> ♦ 



O 



12 



13 



<? <? 



<? 9 



4. 4.1 



4. 4- 



4-.4' 

 4* 4* 



XOTES TO GAME 1. 



Note.— Card underlined takes 

 trick, and card nest below leads 

 ne.xt. ' 



1. With five of a suit and five 

 trumps, .1 properly leads his suit 

 and the penultimate card, which 

 he would show upon the return if 

 -B had Ace, King, or the fall of the 

 cards rendered it advisable. 



2. It is clear from the return 

 that JD has not more than three- 

 .1 conceals the penultimate, and 

 from the fall of the cards the posi- 

 tion of Heart Four is now uncertain. 

 It may be with B or T. 



3. A, by the discard of Diamond 

 Knight, must certainly be calling. 



i. Ji U equal to the occasion, 

 and leads through the King. 



•5. Z here properly plays a false 

 card. By playing the Kine he 

 would still be keeping the turn-up 

 trump, thus making the position 

 too easy for A. 



G. Bat as A has the Seven and 

 the Eight he is in no difficulty, 

 even if Y should hold the two 

 remaining tramps. 



7. Z proceeds t j force A : one 

 trump remains in. 



8. A is obliged to proceed with 

 Heart Queen ; the Knave might be 

 guarded in the hand of either 

 rorZ 



9. A, who has nothing to lose, 

 and is playing for five by cards, 

 leads Diamond Nine. Y ought, 

 at all risks, to play Diamond King. 

 Tlie fall of the cards ought to 

 have made it clear to him that 

 the remaining Hearts were with .1. 

 If Z had Diamond Ace it was im- 

 material. It is in such a position 

 that skill tells. The rest of tlie 

 hand plays itself. 



#uf €\)t<i<i Column. 



By Mephisto. 



AN IMPROVED SCALE OF ODDS AT CHESS, 



T is, indeed, an anomaly that, until now, we should 

 have retained the same hackneyed scale of odds in 

 use ever since the good old times. These odds are 

 very unsatisfactory, as everybody knows who has 

 ever taken part in a Handicap Chess Tournament. 

 The objections against the old scale of odds are 

 many. Theoretically, there is a fundamental defect 

 in the scale. According to this, A gives B Fawn 

 and one move, and to C Pawn and two moves : 

 whereas B has to give C Pawn and one move. We maintain that B 

 is unduly handicapped, the reason being that B ought to give to C 

 merely the difference between Pawn and move and Pawn and two 

 moves ; but B actually gives C more than that. 



The question what would be a fair equivalent of odds for B to 

 give to C is easily answered. If— making allowance for the 

 importance of the move — we substitute two moves for tlie one 

 move difference between the odds of Pawn and move and Pawn 

 and two moves, then we have fairly met the case. It wUI be 

 admitted that a player giving the odds of the first two moves 

 experiences a difficulty in the opening and development of his 

 game. Now, as the odds of Pawn and two moves are merely Pawn 

 and one move plus difficulty, therefore the odds of the first two 

 moves, which are somewhat difficult to meet, are equal to the dif- 

 ference between the odds of Pawn and one move, and Pawn and 

 two moves, so that whilst A gives P. Pawn and move, and to C 

 Pawn and two moves, B ought only to give the first two moves 

 toC. 



Theoretically nothing whatever justifies B to give to C the sub- 

 stantial advantage of a Pawn. Practically the result of experience 

 is, if possible, still more conclusive. In most chess circles and 

 clubs there will be found players whose play indicates that they are 

 almost too good to receive Pawn and two moves, yet they are not 

 advanced into the (so called) second, i. c, the Pawn and move 

 class, because in most instances they could not yield the odds of 

 Pawn and one move successfully to the lower class. This fact 

 clearly shows that there is something wrong, and leaves no doubt as 

 to where the fault lies. 



Most pronounced of any case is, secondly, that of the first class 

 players. In this class there are now-a-davs but very few players 

 indeed whose chess talents satisfy all the conditions upon which a 

 player in modern times is pronounced a first class player. But 

 there are many players who undoubtedly possess great genius and 

 ability for the game, who are mostly too strong to receive the odds 

 of Pawn and one move from the first class, also too strong to play 

 on level terms with Pawn and move players, but the.v are not strong 

 enough either to play successfuUj' against first class players on level 

 terms, nor against the second class at Pawn and move. 



Our proposition is to create a new class of odds, which would not 

 only meet the case of the third-class players and that of the first 

 and second-class players, but it would also effect an improvement 

 in the lower classes, as we propose to create not only a fresh class 

 between the first and second, but also two new classes between the 

 Knight-classes and Rook-classes, the effect of which will be to bring 

 about a more equitable and uniform distribution of odds, enabling a 

 player to rise by gradual and easy stages. 



Our proposition is that 



First class give to second class the Jtrst trco moves. 



In references to the Knight and Rook classes, we think the case is 

 on all fours with that of Pawn and move and Pawn and two moves. 

 The difference between receiving the Knight or Rook with or without 

 the move is a considerable increase of difficulty which is fairly 

 balanced by an equivalent of two moves, which the player receiving 

 the Knight without the move has to give t<3 the player receiving 

 the Knight and the move. We recommend our scale of odds to the 

 favourable consideration of all concerned, and we may mention that 

 this improved scale has been adopted in an important handicap 



